Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: RAIS ALLAHDAD KHAN VS Respondent: THE COLLECTOR (DISTRICT SANGHAR, HYDERABAD DIVISION)
P L D 1960 (W
P L D 1960 (W. P.) Karachi 651
Before Inamullah and S. A. Jan, JJ
Rais ALLAHDAD KHAN‑--Appellant
Versus
THE COLLECTOR (DISTRICT SANGHAR, HYDERABAD DIVISION) AND ANOTHER‑--Respondents
First Appeal No. 8 of 1959, decided on 22nd March, 1960.
(a) Sind Land Revenue Code (V of 1879),
S. 136--‑Liability of co‑sharer to pay land revenue.
Under section 136 of the Sind Land Revenue Code, 1879, the liability of the joint‑--occupants and joint---‑holders for payment of the land revenue is joint and several and in the case of unalienated land it is the occupant who is primarily liable.
(b) Sind Land Revenue Code (v of 1879),
Ss. 150 (e) & 152 ---Arrest of defaulter under S. 150 (e)‑--Need not be preceded by demand notice under S. 152.
The issue of notice of demand under section 152 of the Sind Land Revenue Code, 1879 is by itself a discretionary mode of recovering the arrears of land revenue. The arrest and imprisonment of a defaulter as provided by clause (e) of section 150 of the Code is another independent mode of the recovery of arrears not qualified by any necessity of notice of demand to precede such arrest and imprisonment.
(c) Natural justice‑---
Recovery of arrears of land revenue without demand notice---‑No breach of principle‑--Sind Land Revenue Code (V of 1879), S. 147.
In the matter of land revenue, a person becomes a defaulter under the law immediately after the arrears become due and it is his duty to pay the same regardless of any demand notice to pay. Moral as well as legal obligations lie on the defaulter to clear up his default and for the debtor to pay up his debt and none whatsoever on the other party against whom default is committed. Therefore, to enforce the liability of a defaulter or a debtor in a manner as provided by law without reminding him of his obligations to do so, involves no breach of any principle of natural justice.
Muhammad Ali Saeed for Appellant.
Abdul Kadir Sheikh, A. A. G. for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 22nd March 1960.
JUDGMENT
SAJJAD AHMAD JAN, J.‑---This is an appeal against the judgment of Mr. Ghulam Rasool K. Sheikh, District Judge, Tharparkar at Mirpurkhas, dated the 20th of January 1959, dismissing the appellant's suit, whereby he contested his arrest and detention in the Civil Jail as a defaulter, in arrears of land revenue, on the grounds that he had not been served with any demand notice, before his arrest was effected, and further that the amount claimed from him towards arrears of land revenue was far in excess of what was actually due from him.
2. The appellant is a Zamindar of Sanghar District and is the chief occupant of a considerable area of "unalienated" land in the Talukas of Sanghar and Khipro along with some other co‑sharers. He was arrested on the 26th of March 1955, as allegedly a large amount of money was outstanding against him towards arrears of rent for the past several years. He was brought to the Mukhtar‑i‑Kar at Sanghar and detained there till the 3rd of April 1955, when he was sent up to the Officer -in‑charge, Civil Jail, Hyderabad, with a warrant for detention in the civil prison at Hyderabad as provided by section 157 of the Sind Land Revenue Code of 1879, hereafter referred to as the Code. However, he was able to secure his release on the 11th of April 1955, by furnishing security under section 164 of the above‑mentioned Code and then instituted the suit from which the present appeal arises.
3. The main grievances of the appellant, which formed the subject‑matter of his suit and which have been urged before us in this appeal, are that the plaintiff‑appellant had not been furnished with a statement of account of the land revenue due from him and that his arrest not having been preceded by a demand notice was illegal and further that the amount, which was being demanded from him to the tune of Rs. 30,000, was far in excess of the amount actually due from him. The written statement filed on behalf of the defendant‑respondent‑the Collector at Sanghar District‑repudiated the plaintiff's conten tions. It was stated that the detailed particulars of the sum, representing the amount of arrears of rent against the appellant, had been supplied to him.
4. Several issues were struck in the case, but it is not necessary to advert to all except two, to which the parties confined their contest at the trial as per statements of their Advocates Exh. 86 (page 16 of the paper book), the rest having been given up. These two issues were:‑
(1) Whether any notice was issued and if not, what is the effect?
(2) Whether the amount due from the various co‑owners can be recovered from the plaintiff alone?
The District Judge held on issue No. 1 that no notice was issued to the plaintiff‑appellant, but the non‑issuance of the notice did not have any effect on the liability of the plaintiff‑appellant to pay the amount of arrears or on his arrest in lieu thereof. Issue No. 2 was decided in the affirmative.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant did not contest before us the validity of the trial Court's finding on issue No. 2, viz. that the amount of the land revenue could be recovered from the plaintiff‑appellant as he being a co‑owner is jointly and severally liable with the other co‑owners, by his arrest or other processes of recovery as mentioned in the Code. A reference to section 136 of the Code would clearly show that the liability of the joint‑occupants and joint‑holders for payment of the land revenue is joint and several and in the case of unalienated land it is the occupant who is primarily liable. It is not disputed that the appellant is the occupant, and the land in question is an unalienated land. Therefore, the appellant's liability with the other joint‑holders is joint and several and no exception can be taken to the recovery of the amount from him by any of the processes for recovery of the land revenue including his arrest and civil detention.
6. As to the other question whether any process for recovery including the arrest and detention of a defaulter is to be preceded by a demand notice, we have not been referred to any provision of law in the Code which makes this necessary. Section 150 of the Code in its clauses (a) to (f) mentions the various modes of recovering the arrears of land revenue, one of which [at (a)] is by serving a written notice of demand on the defaulter under section 152 and [at (e)] by arrest and imprisonment of the defaulter under sections 157 and 1558. Section 152 says that a notice of demand may be issued on or after the day following that on which the arrears accrue. Now the issue of a notice of demand under this section is by itself a discretionary mode. The arrest and imprisonment of a defaulter as provided by clause (e) of section 150 mentioned above is an independent mode of the recovery of arrears not qualified by any necessity of notice of demand to precede such arrest and imprisonment. The learned counsel for the appellant not having been able to find any provision to support his contention that a notice was necessary before any step for recovery is to be taken by the arrest of the defaulter or otherwise found himself driven to invoke the principles of natural justice and argued that it was unjust and hard that a person should be deprived of his property and liberty without being served with a show‑cause notice for such an action. In the matter of land revenue, a person becomes a defaulter under the law immediately after the arrears become due and it is his duty to pay the same regardless of any demand notice to pay. The scheme of the Code emphatically points to the duty of the owners of land in this respect. Under section 146 of the Code, the land revenue becomes payable at such times, in such instalments, to such persons and at such places as may from time to time be determined by the orders of the Provincial Government and under section 137 of the same Code the claim to any moneys recoverable as land revenue has precedence over any other debt, demand or claim whatsoever. Under section 147, any sum not paid becomes thereupon an arrear of land revenue and the persons responsible for it become defaulter. We do not consider that to enforce the liability of a defaulter or a debtor in a manner as provided by law without reminding him of his obligations to do so, involves a breach of any principle of natural justice. Moral as well as legal obligations lie on the defaulter to clear up his default and for the debtor to pay up his debt and none whatsoever on the other party against whom default is committed. In the present case, however, there is no question of any equity arising in favour of the appellant. A statement of account of the arrears of land revenue due from the appellant and furnished by the defendant Collector (at page 15 of the paper book) shows that the plaintiff appellant was in arrears of land revenue from the year 1952 up to the 15th of March 1955, in the amount of Rs. 51,639‑9‑6, According to the evidence of Muhammad Azam, Mukhtar‑i‑Kar, a notice bad been sent to the plaintiff‑appellant by a previous Mukhtar‑i‑Kar on the 10th of February 1955, (Exh. 94) for the amount of Rs. 17,722‑8‑0, which had not been paid by him. When the appellant failed to pay the comparatively lesser amount mentioned above in spite of the notice served on him, the relevant authorities quite rightly considered that it was futile to repeat notices to the appellant. We agree with the Court below that no notice was necessary under the law before effecting the arrest of the appellant for his failure to pay the arrears of land revenue.
7. As for the appellant's contention that the amount demanded from him is in excess of the amount actually due from him, it may be mentioned that he has made no effort in the suit whatsoever to establish his point. The amount of arrears due from the appellant as explained in the evidence of P. W. Muhammad Azam has not at all been challenged by the appellant. It is curious that the appellant has not even cared to put himself into the witness box to explain his contention that the amount demanded from him is in excess of what is actually due from him. He bad a full opportunity at the trial to prove the payments which he had allegedly made and which, according to him, had not been adjusted towards the arrears, This he has not done and there is nothing further that can be done about the matter.
8. The appellant's suit fails on merits, but there is another point which may be mentioned and which effectively provides a short answer to his case. The plaintiff appellant had, under section 203 of the Code, a right of appeal to the superior officers against the decision of the Mukhtar‑i‑Kar. He has not filed any appeal. Under section 11 of the Sind Revenue Jurisdiction Act of 1876, no Civil Court is competent to entertain any suit on account of any act or omission of a revenue officer unless the plaintiff first proves that previously to his bringing the suit he has presented all such appeals allowed by the law for the time being in force as within the period of limitation allowed for bringing such suit it was possible to present. The plaintiff appellant, by rushing to the Civil Court with a suit without having availed of the remedy of appeal as provided by the Code, is clearly on the wrong side of the law and his suit is obviously hit by section 11 of the Sind Revenue Jurisdiction Act mentioned above.
9. We see no substance in this appeal and dismiss it with costs.
K. B. A. Appeal dismissed.